The Science of the Resurrection


#1

Carbon fourteen analysis is usually thought of as a scientific method of determining the age of an artifact. However, if that age is already known, the carbon fourteen data can be proof of an event. Suppose that a piece of linen cloth made in 1963 is subjected to C-14 testing. The result would not indicate a date anywhere near 1963. In fact, that linen cloth would have so much carbon fourteen in it that, if its C-14 data were taken as indicating a date, that date would be far into the future! In this case, our cloth’s C-14 data does not indicate a date at all. Testing of nuclear bombs in the 1950’s resulted in neutron fluxes which created carbon fourteen in the earth’s atmosphere. So the C-14 data of the 1963 linen is proof of the event of atmospheric atomic bomb testing in the 1950’s.

In 1898 Secundo Pia’s shocking photograph of the Shroud of Turin showed that its image of Jesus’ corpse had the characteristics of a perfect photographic negative, something impossible for any artist to accurately paint. After Vatican experts had spent some years studying and verifying all the historical documents connected with the Shroud, Pope Pius XI said this in 1936:

“These are the images of the Divine redeemer. . . .They derive from the object, surrounded by mystery, which—this can safely be said—it has now been established is no product of human hands. It is the Holy Shroud at Turin. …it is absolutely certain that it is not the work of man.”

The results of the intensive STURP investigation in 1978 confirmed what Pope Pius XI said. The image on the Shroud is not a painting and cannot be scientifically explained without the postulation of a miraculous event. In 1988 pieces of the Shroud were tested for carbon fourteen, and the analysis of its C-14 data was controlled by Prof. Edward Hall who was an atheist. He ignored the many proofs of the Shroud’s authenticity and refused to consider the possibility that a miracle might have enhanced the Shroud’s C-14 content. He declared the Holy Shroud to be “a load of rubbish,” and the British Museum believed his analysis, declaring the Shroud to be a medieval fake.

However, just as with our 1963 linen cloth, the Shroud’s date was already known. Therefore, any C-14 data that did not show a date of 2000 years old, had to be proof of an event, not a date. The Shroud’s C-14 data had a linear progression: as the piece tested became closer to the Shroud’s image, its date became younger. The conclusion is that the vanishing of Jesus’ corpse left a residual radiation of neutrons that caused nitrogen in the Shroud’s linen fibers to be converted into carbon fourteen. And that same vanishing also left a proton radiation that was the cause of the Shroud’s Divine Image. This theory is called the Historically Consistent Hypothesis, and it explains the many strange features that are found on the Shroud.***

The final conclusion is that the 1988 C-14 testing is proof that Jesus’ corpse really did vanish just as described in our Holy Gospels.

***TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015


#2

Eh, honestly proof by means like this doesn’t really matter to me. It might matter to others who remain unconvinced. But I doubt even this would convince such a person. Even the slightest scientistic, atheistic rebuttal to this evidence would confirm their suspicions before they dismiss it entirely. Nonetheless, informative post.

John 20:29


#3

The miraculous Image on the Holy Shroud has been very influential in shaping the beliefs of many of those who have studied it. The Holy Face (which is derived the Shroud) has also been an object of devotion of religious such as St. Therese of Lisieux.


#4

If it draws people closer to Christ, they’re more than welcome to use it as an object of devotion. But given that the Church hasn’t taken an official position on it and that there’s contentious debate over its validity, I don’t feel compelled to authoritatively assert it to be Jesus’ burial cloth.


#5

There are certainly very many people who do not want to accept the proofs that the Shroud of Turin is Jesus’ burial cloth: not only atheists but also certain religious faiths such as the Bahai’s who have made it central a tenet of their religion that Jesus’ resurrection and miracles did not actually occur.
All over the internet these days are the postulations that Jesus never even existed, or that, if He did exist, He was just another fanatic and did not actually perform miracles. Theories that Christianity was invented by the Roman Empire or was formed out of pagan theology are common.

Our Lord’s miraculous image on His burial Shroud contradicts all of these incorrect ideas. It is immensely important, and it is His promised Sign of Jonah.


#6

The Vatican does not support either this as being miraculous or not. So clearly the Vatican does not consider this a central tenet of faith, but if it helps yours go for it. This does not however mean that there is incontrovertible proof that it is real and I’d encourage you not to base your faith on it.

As for Jesus’ existence, I don’t think there is much scholarly debate that he existed as there are 3rd party mentions of him. What he was is a matter of faith.


#7

Yes, "Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed " I have believed in Jesus ever since I was a child and the love I had in my heart grew as I grew. The Shroud of Turin was left by Jesus for a reason… I have never seen it. Do I believe that the Shroud was wrapped around our Beaten and Crucified Lord, Oh yes. God bless you…


#8

Pope John Paul II:

https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/travels/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_24051998_sindone.html


#9

Pope John Paul II, thank you …Ed thank you for posting that. I will keep that close so I can one day show it to my children. God bless you…:butterfly:


#10

You’re welcome.

God Bless you,
Ed


#11

Because there is no proof. It is simply your opinion.
There are other threads running on this topic and you have failed to show any PROOF in any of them.
It seems you are desperate for it to be true, possibly because you are insecure in your faith.
Not even the Church has declared the Shroud to be authentic but it also seems you know better than the Church.


#12

3D
Have you seen this image made from the shroud?


#13

Like I’ve said many times before, the creed we Catholics recite at Mass begins with the words, “I believe…”, not “I know…” Questions of this nature are superfluous to belief. They may be interesting academic diversions, but when it comes to faith, science isn’t a necessary ingredient. Not that science is bad or evil, just that faith and belief are not dependent on it.


#14

Thank you so much for posting that, I had not seen it…Took my breath away. God blessyou.


#15

It is not simply his opinion…and he is certainly not desperate for it to be true… I believe and so do millions of others, that Jesus was wrapped in that burial cloth. I am not insecure in my faith and neither is he. It is your right not to believe and I respect that, as I ask you to respect my belief. The Shroud should not be a cause for argument , for Jesus’s body rested in it.God bless you…


#16

The tradition of a miraculous image of Jesus on a cloth goes back a full 2000 years. Contrary to your statement, “there is no proof,” a great deal of scientific and historical evidence has been gathered which supports the tradition that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. So much so that it would be impossible to detail all of it here. Perhaps the most dramatic piece of evidence is the incredible photograph that Secundo Pia took in 1898. Then we have the intensive five days of data gathering in 1978 (four tons of scientific equipment) and the subsequent three years of analyzing that data. If the Shroud’s image had been the work of an artist, STURP would have found that out immediately. The 1988 C-14 data absolutely must be interpreted in the light of what is already known about the Shroud, and not in the vacuum of atheism.

The British Museum and Prof. Edward Hall commited the crime of bearing false witness against our Lord Jesus Christ in their haste to declare it a forgery. Hall’s C-14 lab subsequently received a million pound research grant. The British Museum held a “Fake” exibition on the Shroud. It must be understood that the British Museum has immense prestige in the scientific world, and any scientist contesting its pronouncements places himself at risk of becoming unemployed and ostracized. While the authorities of the Church understand full well that the Shroud is authentic, they are nontheless reluctant to place the Church in opposition to the tremendous authority of the Museum.


#17

You are entitled to your opinion of the Shroud. I do not believe it is genuine because there is no proof and the Shroud is not required as an article of faith. The Church does not say it is genuine and the Church allows Catholics to believe whatever they want about it.
You may choose to believe it was the burial cloth of Christ (and you are free to do so) but you most certainly cannot state that is a fact because it is not a fact.


#18

You are simply repeating what you said in the other thread where your arguments were soundly beaten by Hugh Farey and others.
As I have said before you are free to believe it is genuine but the Church says we do not have to believe that. I do not and nor does not believing have any negative impact on my faith. My faith is strong and does not require clutching at things like alleged relics.
Instead of having another Shroud thread all of this should be put back int the recent main thread about the Shroud otherwise we end up with what you have just done and that is simply repeating exactly what you said in that thread.


#19

Sir, my “argument” is that Jesus’ corpse vanished from the inside of a sealed tomb as described in our Holy Gospels. As a Catholic, I assume that you believe that Gospel account. Antonacci’s Historically Consistent Hypothesis holds that the vanishing of Jesus’ corpse left a residual proton and neutron radiation which accounts for all of the Shroud’s mysterious features including its carbon fourteen data. Mr. Farey never disproved this hypothesis. In fact, quite the opposite: he admitted that such was a possiblility, and he applauded the fact that Antonacci’s theory could be proven by additional C-14 testing.

My opinion is that no additional C-14 data gathering is required. Since (in my opinion) the Shroud has already been proven to be the 2000 year old burial cloth of Jesus, the 1988 C-14 datas do not indicate a date. Instead, these datas indicate an event: the vanishing of Jesus’ corpse into another dimension. I take that proof of vanishing as also proof of His resurrection.


#20

Again you are deflecting. Who disputes the Gospel? The fact that Jesus vanished from the tomb is not proof the Shroud is real. That is a stupid conclusion to make. Hugh Farey has NOT agreed there is proof that the Shroud is genuine. In fact there is NO PROOF of that. Anyone who categorically states the Shroud is genuine is a liar. At best you can say in your OPINION it is genuine.
Do not try to shove down our throats something that is not true!


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.